MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791021796 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy008.040

A39 A META-ANALYSIS OF COLON CLEANSING PREPARATIONS IN PATIENTS WITH INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE

2018· article· en· W2791021796 on OpenAlexaff
Sophie Restellini, Omar Kherad, Talat Bessissow, Charles Ménard, Myriam Martel, Alan Barkun

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMicroscopic Colitis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineMeta-analysisAdverse effectRandomized controlled trialTolerabilityInflammatory bowel diseaseDosingPopulationColonoscopyClinical trialGastroenterologySurgeryDiseaseColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are subject to several colonoscopies during their lifespan and subsequently several bowel preparations. Recent guidelines endorse the use of split-dose regimens, but only few data are available in IBD patients who are often excluded from trials for safety concerns. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine any existing difference in terms of effectiveness, safety and tolerability between existing colon-cleansing products in the IBD population. Systematic searches were performed (January 1980 - September 2016) using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL and ISI Web of knowledge for randomized trials assessing preparations with or without adjuvants, given in split and non-split dosing, in high (>3L) or low-volume (2L or less) regimens. Bowel cleansing quality was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included patient willingness-to-repeat the preparation and side effects and complications. Out of 439 citations, 4 trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria (n = 449 patients). One trial (Lazzaroni et coll. 1993) assessed the impact of adding Simethicone to Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) 4L witch resulted in similar bowel cleansing effect but a better willingness to repeat. One other trial (Gould et coll 1982) compared senna to castor oil, again without any difference in term of bowel cleansing. Two trials compared the efficacy of PEG high-volume versus PEG low-volume associated to an adjuvant in split-dose regimens (Kim et al 2016, Manes et al 2016): PEG low-dose efficacy was not different to PEG high-dose; OR=0.84 (0.37; 1.92) A higher proportion of patients were willing to repeat low-volume preparations vs high-volume; OR 5.11 (1.31–20.0). In IBD population, PEG low-volume regimen seems not inferior to PEG high-volume to clean the colon, and yields improved tolerance. Further additional research is urgently required to compare contemporary products in this specific population. None

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.073
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicMicroscopic ColitisFrench-language works237,207